Japan Skyscrapers Sway With 8.9 Earthquake but the WTC collapsed !! still beleive the 9/11 version?

reply to post by Yankee451


Its a question of credibiity - I cite writers from the New York Times and FDNY fire chiefs

You - some clowns in mommy's basement posting crap on the internet

So who you are supposed to believe? Th rational would chosse option #1

Consapiracy whack jobs? Well can guess......

As for "CITY IN THE SKY" - made it easy

books.google.com... &sig=wvj2sg3zPT-FX938YPjJOpUS8Og&hl=en&ei=6G-QTYeLKMrogAe1hYinDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CB0Q6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false

Does this paper that you cite have a name there Yankee?

Because I have tried searching online for an "Oxford Encyclopedia of Technology and Innovation" and only come to conspiracy websites. Not one from the actual publisher.

Can you give me more information about this source?

Thanks.

Originally posted by Yankee451
reply to post by GenRadek

 

Interesting story.

Lets cut through the clutter. The reason Japanese buildings didn't fall is because they didn't have to contend with anything like what happened in Manhattan.

This was an earlier post directed at WMD and hastily ignored by all but the hapless thedman.

Anyone else is welcome to make an attemt at a serious discussion...even you Gen.

1. Why didnt Japanese buildings fall from the earthquake? Its called an earthquake damper, installed at the base of many structures' foundations, which allow for the building to survive shaking. Looks like this:

also used:
Tuned mass dampers:
en.wikipedia.org...
and many more. Just read here on earthquake engineering:
en.wikipedia.org...

2. They didnt have 767s impacting them did they?

3. WTC cores did have steel and concrete. Of course they had, because they needed stairs, floors, mechanical floors, you cant make all steel stairs, or all steel floor areas. The stairs were made from concrete. The floor landings were concrete, of course. The areas with the elevators had concrete. BUT, and here is the big "but" of the fact. The core did NOT have steel columns or beams encased in concrete. Let me repeat that real slowly for those who cannot read fast: The core did not have steel columns or beams encased in concrete. No steel reinforced concrete columns like Windsor. Just plain ol steel columns and encased in nothing more than drywall and sheetrock. If anyone has ever worked with either knows just what they are, and how they work, and how they break. The stairwells were surrounded by sheetrock, or drywall. The elevator shafts were surrounded by sheetrock. Sure its sturdy and lighter than concrete slabs, but sucks when impacted by anything hard or dropped, or torqued. When the building was hit, it was reported by many that the whole tower swayed, torqued, twisted, and shook, causing many walls to crack, shift, fall out, shatter, etc. Doors were jammed shut or open in the core, shafts were exposed, steel columns were exposed. Also, firefighters reported the whole structure as it was burning, experiencing it slowly falling apart. Hearing beams snapping, creaking, groaning ( and this was in the Twin Towers! Not just 7. )
Some examples:
Joseph Callan:

FDNY Assistant Chief Joseph Callan: "Approximately 40 minutes after I arrived in the lobby, I made a decision that the building was no longer safe. And that was based on the conditions in the lobby, large pieces of plaster falling, all the 20 foot high glass panels on the exterior of the lobby were breaking. There was obvious movement of the building, and that was the reason on the handy talky I gave the order for all Fire Department units to leave the north tower."

graphics8.nytimes.com...

Around 9:15, Drohan heard (Port Authority WTC Construction Manager Frank) DeMartini over the walkie-talkie.
"Any construction inspector at ground level."
Drohan acknowledged that he was on the street.
"Can you escort a couple of structural inspectors to the 78th floor?" DeMartini asked.
DeMartini had seen something in the steel–Drohan was not sure what–that he did not like. The drywall had been knocked off parts of the sky lobby, exposing the elevator shafts, and revealing the core of the building. That had prompted his first radio alert, warning that the elevators might collapse. Now DeMartini wanted inspectors from a structural engineering firm to come up to the 78th-floor sky lobby and take a look.

FDNY Firefighter Hugh Mettham: We reached the sixth or seventh floor and are met by many firefighters coming down the stairs, informing us that the upper floors are collapsing and that there’s a heavy odor of gas and fuel.

Also read of the instability witnessed by many personnel prior to collapse. Also doesnt sound like controlled demolition when it was being seen widely that the tower is looking like its going to collapse on its own:
WTC instability and imminent structural failure prior to collapse

So the core was exposed in the impacts. The steel alone. Also, reports of creaking, settling, snapping, torquing, even tilting. These are the FUNDAMENTAL signs ALL firefighters are taught in firefighting to be aware of potential or impending structural failure and collapse. Doors were not closing or jammed shut, etc etc etc. All signs of impending doom.

Its a shame that not a SINGLE truther site mentions ANY of the facts above. Only "sounded like a bomb," "looked like an explosion," "sounded like an explosion," "heard an explosion," and these are touted as proof of demo charges. It makes me sick.

reply to post by GenRadek


A real interesting eyewitness comment on what he heard prior to collapse:

Niel Sweeting EMS: I remember when we heard abandon the site, I said, wow, this would be really good to keep with us. So I started pushing this cart, and I got stuck in the doorway with it, when we started hearing this rumble. I can remember -- I specifically remember this like twisting sound of metal. We were probably about half a block away from the complex at this point.

You heard a big boom, it was quiet for about ten seconds. Then you could hear another one. Now I realize it was the floors starting to stack on top of each other as they were falling . It was spaced apart in the beginning, but then it got to just a tremendous roar and a rumble that I will never forget.

graphics8.nytimes.com...

Maybe sounded something like this?


You dont hear steel or metal twisting when it it is being blown up.

DNY Chief Joseph Dunne: Another ten or 15 minutes or so later, one of my guys said to me, "listen, the north tower is making noise, we're not safe here, that building is going to come down too.”
Dennis Smith. Report From Ground Zero. New York: Viking Penguin, 2002

Hi Yankee451 re your concrete claim!!!

sydney.edu.au...

No Concrete
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/uploads/ats32614_coregyp2.jpg[/atsimg]

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/uploads/ats32612_coregyp.jpg[/atsimg]

Sheetrock in lift shaft thats how the people trap in the lift got out NOT CONCRETE

www.bbc.co.uk...

Brian Clark was one of the only four survivors from both towers to escape from above where the planes hit. He describess clambering over the shattered walls to break through a smoke-filled stairwell to get out. "Drywall had been blown off and was lying up against the stair railing." he says, "We had to shovel it aside." Another survivor, window cleaner Jan Demczur, found the drywall so soft that he was able to dig through it with a squeegee to break out of a lift he was trapped in.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/uploads/ats29637_missingSOFP.jpg[/atsimg]

No Concrete or Concrete shutters/formwork!!!!








Typical Floor Plan with core details NO CONCRETE!!! Ironic from a truther site!!!! but you can see the sheetrock cladding!!!




This is what a plane can do to a reinforced concrete building



Didn't bounce off and fall to the ground and didn't break up into tiny pieces either.

Originally posted by FDNY343

Originally posted by ANOK
You should know by now it's not necessarily that the building collapsed but the way it collapsed, even though no it should not have collapsed from several hours of fire.

Please feel free to google "Charleston SC sofa store fire" and start reading. You will find stuff that proves this incorrect.

Why should I do your work for you? If you have something post it and explain it.

Was it a 47 story building that landed mostly in its own footprint from fire alone? No it was a single story building who's roof collapsed. That is nothing like a 47 story building collapsing in its own footprint (the tallest building ever to do this btw, because its extremely difficult to accomplish).

You just prove with this you have no clue about high rise steel framed buildings, and the physicist involved.

Gravity is another. Oh, wait, CD'ed buildings fall because of gravity too.

If gravity was all that was need then explain why demolition companies have to do so much work to get a building to fall in its footprint? Resistance trumps your gravity, sorry.

Originally posted by ANOK
Please feel free to google "Charleston SC sofa store fire" and start reading. You will find stuff that proves this incorrect.

No I won't. Stop telling me to google stuff and explain why you think its similar. If you want me to do work, you better give something back mate.

Incorrect. If the interior has already began to collapse before the exterior shell, then yes, this is possible.

No it isn't possible. Please explain how the interior of the WTC 7 collapsed, and please don't say fire because It would take more than that. To both collapse the center columns in the correct timing, ahead of the outer walls to allow them to wait and fall inwards on the collapsed center takes more than fire mate. Unless that fire was controlled lol.

How might we be able to tell that the interior of a building is collapsing?

Maybe a huge penthouse falling into it from the roof? Then a few seconds (not sure of the exact time without looking) then the global collapse begins. What do you think the inside is doing?

I'm not arguing the center of the building didn't collapse, we all know it did, I just recognize that as part of a controlled implosion demolition, as I have explained and you seem to either ignore or simply can not, or don't want, to understand. You have no explanation of the center collapse, except fire, which isn't enough.

Explain Fitteman Hall. Thanks.

You explain it, I have no idea what you're talking about but show me and I'll show you what you're misunderstanding, just like all the silly physics analogies you fail at so bad.

It wasn't fire alone. Another process called gravity was also involved.

Yes, and so was resistance, and Newtons laws of motion, but you keep ignoring them. You keep ignoring the facts that point towards the most obvious and making things up to fit a fantasy.

I have explained the physics that wouldn't allow the WTC 7 to collapse in its own footprint from a natural collapse, you have yet to explain using physics how it can. No one can, that is why it wasn't explained by the government.

Originally posted by GenRadek
Niel Sweeting EMS: I remember when we heard abandon the site, I said, wow, this would be really good to keep with us. So I started pushing this cart, and I got stuck in the doorway with it, when we started hearing this rumble. I can remember -- I specifically remember this like twisting sound of metal. We were probably about half a block away from the complex at this point.

You heard a big boom, it was quiet for about ten seconds. Then you could hear another one. Now I realize it was the floors starting to stack on top of each other as they were falling . It was spaced apart in the beginning, but then it got to just a tremendous roar and a rumble that I will never forget.

How does that contradict controlled demolition?

Anyone who heard that noise, and then heard the official explanation, would add that info to their memory and conclude after the fact that is was falling floors. I doubt the guy is an expert on recognizing sound during collapses.

Just because they thought afterword that the noise they heard was simply floors impacting floors, doesn't mean the collapse wasn't helped with explosives of some kind.

The pancake collapse idea is nonsense, as I have tried to explain, floors falling on floors can not completely collapse the whole building with no mass left in the footprint. Even NIST admitted this and dropped that idea completely, deciding to only explain the initiation, ignoring the actual continuous collapse.

If floors were simply dropping and impacting each other then there should have been a stack of floors still in the footprint, they couldn't all be ejected outside the footprint AND have the energy to crush floors of equal mass bellow them. Not enough dropping floors.

9/11 was an inside job, at this late stage in the game only imbeciles and cretins swallow the "official story."
The commission was a sham and the clues are blatant.

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

I may be a "Truther" I'm proud to ask questions, especially when they are so obvious.

I'd Rather be a truther than a SWALLOWER - of BS

reply to post by ANOK

I doubt the guy is an expert on recognizing sound during collapses.

Right so when someone else mentions, "It sounded like a bomb," or: "I heard an explosion," we are to automatically assume he/she means demolition charges, thermite bombs, explosives, and that is incontroverisal proof of something sinister, inside job, etc, but when someone says something that is totally against your sacred beliefs, he/she is a heretic, and should be stoned... I mean, shunned, ignored, and mistaken, not an expert. But to you, Dr. Griffin and company are actual experts on skyscraper engineering, demolition, explosives, etc. Give me a break.

The pancake collapse idea is nonsense, as I have tried to explain, floors falling on floors can not completely collapse the whole building with no mass left in the footprint. Even NIST admitted this and dropped that idea completely, deciding to only explain the initiation, ignoring the actual continuous collapse.

If floors were simply dropping and impacting each other then there should have been a stack of floors still in the footprint, they couldn't all be ejected outside the footprint AND have the energy to crush floors of equal mass bellow them. Not enough dropping floors.

So the floors just disappeared, ANOK? They just vanished into thin air? Where are the floors going to go? According to physics, DOWN. According to gravity. DOWN. You claim to be such an expert at understanding Newton's laws, and yet here you cannot fathom a simple concept that when one floor land on top of another floor, its going to go down, according to gravity. It is not going to go sideways, on an angle, straight up, or warp into the 10th dimension. It is simply going to drop down. Each floor will fall onto the one below it. As to whether it was the starter of the entire collapse, that is up for debate. However, the FACT remains, once the collapse started, there is only one place it going: DOWN.

Also, as the floors collapsed down, they left the exterior columns and interior columns free-standing for a short time. Then we see them get forced out by the collapsing debris above, landing farther away like a banana peel, peeling away. The top section went BEHIND the lower section. You can see it happening in the video below, and pay very close attention to the left side of the screen, to the Tower at 0:10-0:19

Watch how you can see the top fall into the tower as it comes down, and the floors below are collapsing. You can see it before the debris from above comes down obscuring the view. Then keep watching as the debris has already gone down low, and all of a sudden you see the exterior columns fall over. all those dust ejections are the floors themselves pancaking down. The exterior columns fall away later. Then in the aftermath, you can see the exterior columns laid out as if they are peeled away from the tower.

Guess what else? When workers started to work on the debris, what did they find? *GASP!!!!* Pancaked floors!!! Oh no, say it aint so!!!! How did they get there? According to ANOK, they were suppose to just disappear!

Look!!!

From my layman's consideration of the laws of physics and standardised education I believe that the towers were probably demolished. Mainly because of 2 reasons. 1) Before WTC2 collapsed you see the top of the tower momentarily pivot outwards away from its centre of gravity until it completely disappears into a cloud of dust. Now, I would expect the top-section to keep pivoting outwards as long as there was resistance from below. Hence the top-section in my opinion could not possibly have crushed the lower-section of the tower. 2) There was a law in physics when I was at school, I think I remember, which stated for every action there was an equal and opposite reaction. So the top-section could not have destroyed the lower-section as it collapsed without destroying itself in the process and thus stopping the collapse. The notion that the towers could have collapsed symmetrically without having their columns simultaneously removed by explosives I think is highly improbable because it would imply that all the forces for the entire collapse were in equilibrium. There are probably other reasons that I have not thought of. Anyhow, those are a few of my reasons.

Look at the whole series of coincidence's, the stand down, magical passports, the fate of the debris from the attack. No footage of the pentagon strike, The collapse of the towers in general - building building 7 - What a farce. Some people just bury their heads in the sand because the REAL truth is overwhelming. The attacks were a lie, those half baked pilots could not have done it. They defied the laws of physics. Wake up - Or if you're a shill go and kill yourself, seriously. The gaps in the "official story" beggar belief. More to the point. It is obvious why they did it.

A convenient excuse to go into the middle east.

PROJECT FOR THE NEW AMERICAN CENTURY

pay attention.

Originally posted by GenRadek
Right so when someone else mentions, "It sounded like a bomb," or: "I heard an explosion," we are to automatically assume he/she means demolition charges, thermite bombs, explosives, and that is incontroverisal proof of something sinister, inside job, etc, but when someone says something that is totally against your sacred beliefs, he/she is a heretic, and should be stoned... I mean, shunned, ignored, and mistaken, not an expert. But to you, Dr. Griffin and company are actual experts on skyscraper engineering, demolition, explosives, etc. Give me a break.

No lol, you are the one that wants everyone to assume any explosive noises heard were anything but explosives. Did I say they should be ignored? What about all the other witnesses who did say they heard explosives, you ignore them right? I'm not ignoring your witness, just pointing out that your witness is proof of nothing.

So the floors just disappeared, ANOK? They just vanished into thin air?

There were no floors left in the buildings footprint, there were no complete floors, concrete or the steel floor pans. For your collapse method to be true there had to be floors in the footprint,

Where are the floors going to go? According to physics, DOWN. According to gravity. DOWN.

But they didn't just go down did they? If they did then there would be floors in the footprint as I explained. There are no floors in the footprint because they were ejected laterally during the collapse. So if they are not in the footprint and were being ejected what crushed the floors, floor pans, into tiny pieces and spread them 360d around the footprint?

You claim to be such an expert at understanding Newton's laws...

You don't have to be an expert to understand Newtons laws, it is the most basic of physics to learn, high school stuff mate.

...and yet here you cannot fathom a simple concept that when one floor land on top of another floor, its going to go down, according to gravity. It is not going to go sideways, on an angle, straight up, or warp into the 10th dimension. It is simply going to drop down. Each floor will fall onto the one below it. As to whether it was the starter of the entire collapse, that is up for debate. However, the FACT remains, once the collapse started, there is only one place it going: DOWN.

You are wrong mate, there is nothing to say that a floor falling on a floor is going to cause them to collapse.

Again if it happened as you claim there would have to be floors still in the footprint, you failure to understand this proves you fail to understand the laws of motion and moment conservation, something I keep proving every time we have a discussion.

Also, as the floors collapsed down, they left the exterior columns and interior columns free-standing for a short time.

You're making this up, there is ZERO evidence of this.

Then we see them get forced out by the collapsing debris above, landing farther away like a banana peel, peeling away.

You are contradicting your own hypothesis. If the floors are being forced out by the landing debris then you are losing mass that you need to collapse further floors.

The top section went BEHIND the lower section. You can see it happening in the video below, and pay very close attention to the left side of the screen, to the Tower at 0:10-0:19

HUH? I have no idea what you're talking about here. If you want to get into the tilt of WTC 2 then that is a whole other discussion. Lot's of threads on that, here's one...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Watch how you can see the top fall into the tower as it comes down

You need new glasses or a better monitor. The top can not have fallen into the bottom section. You are seeing the top collapsing independent of the top. Look a bit closer, and take into consideration physics and reality when you asses what you see.

Guess what else? When workers started to work on the debris, what did they find?

*GASP!!!!*

Pancaked floors!!! Oh no, say it aint so!!!! How did they get there? According to ANOK, they were suppose to just disappear!

Look!!!

LOL it would take more than a pancake collapse to crush floors to that extent. There was not enough mass in the building to crush itself to that extent. Concrete doesn't crush it breaks up, it would take a lot of heat to cause concrete to fuse together like that. You can't even tell really what those pics are showing.

Still not enough mass in the footprint to explain the collapse that way. It didn't go any higher than the lobby.

Take a look at this thread...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by ANOK
Why should I do your work for you? If you have something post it and explain it.

I know what happened in the SC fire. A simple hydrocarbon fire caused the steel of the building to fail. In 47 minutes.

Please explain how this is impossible as you claim.

Originally posted by ANOK
Was it a 47 story building that landed mostly in its own footprint from fire alone? No it was a single story building who's roof collapsed. That is nothing like a 47 story building collapsing in its own footprint (the tallest building ever to do this btw, because its extremely difficult to accomplish).

No, it was not, but nice shift of those goalposts. You said specifically.
"The only way you can make a building fall mostly in its own footprint is implosion demolition."

This does not specify any size building. Thanks for playing.

Originally posted by ANOK
You just prove with this you have no clue about high rise steel framed buildings, and the physicist involved.

Physicist? Why is a guy that studies physics involved in the collapse of steel-framed buildings?

Originally posted by ANOK
If gravity was all that was need then explain why demolition companies have to do so much work to get a building to fall in its footprint? Resistance trumps your gravity, sorry.

Did I specify that gravity alone causes it to fall? No, I did not.

Originally posted by ANOK
No I won't. Stop telling me to google stuff and explain why you think its similar. If you want me to do work, you better give something back mate.

You said specifically " NO BUILDING no matter how long it is on fire, can fall into its own footprint from fire alone"

Incorrect.

SC Sofa store fire proves this false.

But, feel free to ammend your statement if you feel compelled.

Originally posted by ANOK
No it isn't possible. Please explain how the interior of the WTC 7 collapsed, and please don't say fire because It would take more than that. To both collapse the center columns in the correct timing, ahead of the outer walls to allow them to wait and fall inwards on the collapsed center takes more than fire mate. Unless that fire was controlled lol.

Why would it take more than fire? Fire can and will cause a column or beam to fail. Please feel free to google "thermal expansion" to educate yourself.

So, are you arguing from personal beliefs? Or do you have some kind of reference to back this up?

Originally posted by ANOK
I'm not arguing the center of the building didn't collapse, we all know it did, I just recognize that as part of a controlled implosion demolition, as I have explained and you seem to either ignore or simply can not, or don't want, to understand. You have no explanation of the center collapse, except fire, which isn't enough.

So, where are the huge explosions just prior to collapse? Where are the tremendous amounts of BOOM BOOM BOOMS in sucession immediately prior to collapse?

Oh, that's right, nano-hush-a-boom......gotcha......

Originally posted by ANOK
You explain it, I have no idea what you're talking about but show me and I'll show you what you're misunderstanding, just like all the silly physics analogies you fail at so bad.

How does a building that falls into it's footprint (As you have claimed) hit the ROOF of Fitterman Hall? And the post office? And the Verizon Building?

Here is a part of the damage to the Verizon Building from 7WTC.
rpmedia.ask.com.../wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/77/Verizon_building_damage2.jpg/120px-Verizon_building_damage2.jpg

Here is the damage to the ROOF of Fitterman Hall from 7WTC
upload.wikimedia.org...

Here is a top down view of the aftermath.

[IMG[s18.photobucket.com...[/IMG]

The Verizon Building is to the LEFT of 7WTC. The USPO building is to the RIGHT, and Fitterman Hall is above it.

So, when did they start putting 3 different buildings on 3 different streets into the footprints of other buildings?

Originally posted by ANOK
Yes, and so was resistance, and Newtons laws of motion, but you keep ignoring them. You keep ignoring the facts that point towards the most obvious and making things up to fit a fantasy.

I have explained the physics that wouldn't allow the WTC 7 to collapse in its own footprint from a natural collapse, you have yet to explain using physics how it can. No one can, that is why it wasn't explained by the government.

No, you keep trying to imply that they are being used in such a way that is inconsistant with reality.

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by GenRadek
Niel Sweeting EMS: I remember when we heard abandon the site, I said, wow, this would be really good to keep with us. So I started pushing this cart, and I got stuck in the doorway with it, when we started hearing this rumble. I can remember -- I specifically remember this like twisting sound of metal. We were probably about half a block away from the complex at this point.

You heard a big boom, it was quiet for about ten seconds. Then you could hear another one. Now I realize it was the floors starting to stack on top of each other as they were falling . It was spaced apart in the beginning, but then it got to just a tremendous roar and a rumble that I will never forget.

How does that contradict controlled demolition?

Anyone who heard that noise, and then heard the official explanation, would add that info to their memory and conclude after the fact that is was falling floors. I doubt the guy is an expert on recognizing sound during collapses.

Just because they thought afterword that the noise they heard was simply floors impacting floors, doesn't mean the collapse wasn't helped with explosives of some kind.

The pancake collapse idea is nonsense, as I have tried to explain, floors falling on floors can not completely collapse the whole building with no mass left in the footprint. Even NIST admitted this and dropped that idea completely, deciding to only explain the initiation, ignoring the actual continuous collapse.

If floors were simply dropping and impacting each other then there should have been a stack of floors still in the footprint, they couldn't all be ejected outside the footprint AND have the energy to crush floors of equal mass bellow them. Not enough dropping floors.

edit on 3/28/2011 by ANOK because: (no reason given)

Two points.

If he heard the collapse, why didn't he hear the explosions?


Secondly, how much of 1&2 WTC ended up in the BASEMENT? Could it have been 3 floors worth of rubble?

My guess? Hell yeah it could of.

Where is the basement in a building?

Oh, right, the footprint. Thanks.

Originally posted by ANOK

edit on 3/28/2011 by ANOK because: (no reason given)

How is a chunk of "molten Rock" as the title says, still have legible paper sticking out of it?

reply to post by WeMoveUnseen

A convenient excuse to go into the middle east

Umm, newsflash, we have had troops in the Middle East almost continually since the end of World War II. We really did not NEED an excuse.

Originally posted by Yankee451
reply to post by SlightlyAbovePar

 

For folks really interested in what happened, for starters there's an depth discussion here:

letsrollforums.com...

Video archives here:

www.911conspiracy.tv...

And there's Leslie Raphael's work here:

frankresearch.info...

Yes, but I'm asking for you to explain your beliefs. I'm not interested in reading someone else's work. I am really interested in hear your thoughts.

reply to post by FDNY343


...And why does a parking lot full of burned out cars have unburned paper all over it?

Good questions, are you finally getting the point, or do you really think you were debunking something?

I was just playing the what IF game so far as the collapse is concerned, what would happen IF the collapse was to initiate as the OS claims. No one has explained even the collapse initiation, sagging trusses puling in columns is nonsense afaik, so really any point YOU have about the crushed floors has to come with an explanation of how it even collapsed to that point in the first place.

So no, you have shown anything that supports your claims.

Originally posted by ANOK
Good questions, are you finally getting the point, or do you really think you were debunking something?

Apparently a lot of these guys think asking questions is the same as "debunking."

If that was the case then the OS would have been definitively destroyed for years by now.

reply to post by ANOK


It wasn't fire alone YOU know that there was damage done to the building(wtc7) and it was on fire for many hours and we now what that can do!